On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:17:57 GMT, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:02:16 -0500, Barnyard BOb
wrote:




The flight of N863WL from Seattle to Kansas City was a flight of 2
until overnighting in Salt Lake City with Ric and Shari Lee. From
there, it seemed like just a short hop the next day to KCMO at 200+
mph ground speed. At 75% power, the fuel burn was near 9 gph with the
airspeed hovering in the neighborhood at a tad over 185 mph on the
trusty 150 hp Lycoming 0-320.

in my language that would be 161 knots burning 34 litres per hour.
for the distance travelled the Tailwind would burn about 32.5 litres.
(120 knots at 24 litres per hour)
so it is a pretty damn efficient aeroplane.

FWIW: General pulic MPG claims are higher than mine.
I don't lean until at least one valve burns...
or fly so slow as to get 28 mpg. It's a fast
machine so I fly it that way.

when you say "nimble" I'm not sure what you mean. it has a few
meanings.
is it really sensitive on the controls to fly or is it sprightly (high
performance) to fly?

BOTH.
If you see the stick move...
you may well may be over controlling.

Roll and pitch rates ares not as high as purebred acrobatic ships,
but those use to such responses will feel right at home in an RV3.


does it fly like a Tailwind or more like an RV6 ?

Never been in a Tailwind.

RV3 stability is NEUTRAL.
Turn it lose, and it eventually will go someplace else.

An RV6 flies like a truck compared to an RV3.


what are the landings like?
squirrilly or docile?
Stealth Pilot

I hear the RV3 lands slower and therefore, shorter than a Tailwind.
Stall is a tad over 50 mph. Stall is gentle and very predictable.

Many RV fliers prefer wheel landings. It is NOT my technique of
choice. I go with the FAA position that the slowest landing is the
safest landing, therefore FULL STALL is my preference. However,
the RV3 has a quirk. IMO, the main landing gear is a couple of inches
too short. This means at full stall, you land tailwheel first. So, I
land just shy of full stall. Here's why....

Given that the main gear is stiff tubing, it is a bit jarring and not
good for the weldments where the landing gear tubing is welded within
the engine motor mount. This is a definite weak link for RV3's and
RV4's and cracks develop in this area more often than not for us
owners. It then follows the engine must be removed for most repairs
that generally are not permanent. This gear design, the implementation
and tubing thickness of my engine mount truly SUCKS BIGTIME!!!!! If
there is a practical and guaranteed way to fix this gear problem once
and for all, short of starting from scratch, I sure want to know about
it. I repaired my mount a couple of hundred hours ago and fly into
mostly rough grass strips. So far, so good. Could be my mods are
better than most through nothing more than dumb luck practiced via
shadetree eyeball engineering!

The squirreliest plane I've ever flown was a Piper Pacer that was
suffering tailwheel and main gear alignment problems. Beyond that,
I've not experienced any mechanically sound plane that I would label
as squirrelly.

WARNING: Given my years and hours, my opinion may not be of much use
to lower time pilots or zero time tailwheel guys. With this in mind,
I think the RV3 has mild ground and air manners and is less squirrelly
than most with one caveat for newbies.... the RV3 corrections need to
be made faster than say... an Aeronca Champ. Get behind on corrections
with any tailwheel craft and you could be in deep doo-doo.

I've heard of low time Champ pilots transitioning to tailwheel RV's
with no problems, but I recommend dual in any tailwheel RV just to be
on the safe side. With little mass in the ass end of an RV3... it
responds quickly and predictably and is easier to land than the other
RV's, IMO.

Quite unlike a Piper Pacer with 140? lbs on the tailwheel. :-)



~ Barnyard BOb ~